Dear Mr. Wim Dankbaar, and Fellow JFK Forum Members,
The short version of Jimmy's answer is that he is tired of answering any and all questions anymore. This benefits him in no way, shape, or form.
Believe him, don't believe him.
He has provided more than enough information.
Jimmy is very concerned with his other projects.
He has asked me to answer no more questions, for any reason.
Respectfully,
Bruce Patrick Brychek.
Bruce, Jimmy's army serial number
-
Bruce Patrick Brychek
- Posts: 1306
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Bruce,
I am a supporter of Wim's work and have always believed James Files is the real deal. But an answer like this : "Believe him or don't" doesn't show the respect that you and Jimmy frequently express about Wim, at least not in my opinion. I think it is vital that Jimmy gives a satisfactory answer to this simple question, and that you help Jimmy see the importance of answering it. If not for any other reason than the truth, then just the circumstance that you are Wim's trusted friend, as you say you are, would be a good enough as a reason.
Gr. Paul.
I am a supporter of Wim's work and have always believed James Files is the real deal. But an answer like this : "Believe him or don't" doesn't show the respect that you and Jimmy frequently express about Wim, at least not in my opinion. I think it is vital that Jimmy gives a satisfactory answer to this simple question, and that you help Jimmy see the importance of answering it. If not for any other reason than the truth, then just the circumstance that you are Wim's trusted friend, as you say you are, would be a good enough as a reason.
Gr. Paul.
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Serial #
Paul wrote:Bruce, I am a supporter of Wim's work Gr. Paul.
I believe that most members are supporters of Wim's work. Exceptions are Rick, Cindy & other disinformation birds. In the case of Jimmy's disinclination to reveal his serial number there may be another reason: danger. Remember Jimmy has been advised. Bruce can correct this point as needed.
Of course Wim is simply trying to validate Jimmy's story by refuting certain critics. But aren't those critics the same disinformation bogeys who we have seen? Maybe it is not necessary to force this point. After all, the preponderance of the evidence is convincing enough. For example, is Frenchy really Charles Rogers? Maybe not. So does that destroy Chauncey Holt's info. No.
What say you, Bruce?
I believe that most members are supporters of Wim's work. Exceptions are Rick, Cindy & other disinformation birds. In the case of Jimmy's disinclination to reveal his serial number there may be another reason: danger. Remember Jimmy has been advised. Bruce can correct this point as needed.
Of course Wim is simply trying to validate Jimmy's story by refuting certain critics. But aren't those critics the same disinformation bogeys who we have seen? Maybe it is not necessary to force this point. After all, the preponderance of the evidence is convincing enough. For example, is Frenchy really Charles Rogers? Maybe not. So does that destroy Chauncey Holt's info. No.
What say you, Bruce?
Re: Serial #
Jim Thompson wrote:For example, is Frenchy really Charles Roberts?
Hi Jim,
I think you meant Charles Rogers in stead off Charles Roberts?
Gr. Paul.
Hi Jim,
I think you meant Charles Rogers in stead off Charles Roberts?
Gr. Paul.
I believe that most members are supporters of Wim's work. Exceptions are Rick, Cindy & other disinformation birds. In the case of Jimmy's disinclination to reveal his serial number there may be another reason: danger. Remember Jimmy has been advised. Bruce can correct this point as needed.
I think it is important. Why would Jimmy assist John Grady with this ("a very nice man") and not me? If he has a good reason, then so be it, but then I would like to know the reason. I remember I have asked the question about 2 years ago and Jimmy expressed concern that the military could revive his court marshal, that he killed two of his own men. I have been thinking about that, but it is inconceivable to me. That would CONFIRM his military service for sure, so this will never be done.
Of course Wim is simply trying to validate Jimmy's story by refuting certain critics. But aren't those critics the same disinformation bogeys who we have seen? Maybe it is not necessary to force this point.
Well, the problem I have, is that this is one piece of tangible information that is easy to give with no visible risk for Jimmy. I would like to undesrtand why Jimmy is reluctant, especially because he has provided assitance on this before, and also because he has expressed gratitude to me for defending his integrity. Therefore, I believe I am entitled to a little more cooperation on this issue.
After all, the preponderance of the evidence is convincing enough. For example, is Frenchy really Charles Roberts? Maybe not. So does that destroy Chauncey Holt's info. No.
It would destroy Chauncey's info yes, if he had said it was Charles Rogers, but that's not what he said. He said he knew that person as "Carlos Montoya", and that he can't guarantee it was in fact Rogers (which I am sure is the case).
What say you, Bruce?
I think it is important. Why would Jimmy assist John Grady with this ("a very nice man") and not me? If he has a good reason, then so be it, but then I would like to know the reason. I remember I have asked the question about 2 years ago and Jimmy expressed concern that the military could revive his court marshal, that he killed two of his own men. I have been thinking about that, but it is inconceivable to me. That would CONFIRM his military service for sure, so this will never be done.
Of course Wim is simply trying to validate Jimmy's story by refuting certain critics. But aren't those critics the same disinformation bogeys who we have seen? Maybe it is not necessary to force this point.
Well, the problem I have, is that this is one piece of tangible information that is easy to give with no visible risk for Jimmy. I would like to undesrtand why Jimmy is reluctant, especially because he has provided assitance on this before, and also because he has expressed gratitude to me for defending his integrity. Therefore, I believe I am entitled to a little more cooperation on this issue.
After all, the preponderance of the evidence is convincing enough. For example, is Frenchy really Charles Roberts? Maybe not. So does that destroy Chauncey Holt's info. No.
It would destroy Chauncey's info yes, if he had said it was Charles Rogers, but that's not what he said. He said he knew that person as "Carlos Montoya", and that he can't guarantee it was in fact Rogers (which I am sure is the case).
What say you, Bruce?
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Questions
dankbaar wrote:I think it is important. Why would Jimmy assist John Grady with this ("a very nice man") and not me? If he has a good reason, then so be it, but then I would like to know the reason. I remember I have asked the question about 2 years ago and Jimmy expressed concern that the military could revive his court marshal, that he killed two of his own men. I have been thinking about that, but it is inconceivable to me. That would CONFIRM his military service for sure, so this will never be done. Well, the problem I have, is that this is one piece of tangible information that is easy to give with no visible risk for Jimmy. I would like to undesrtand why Jimmy is reluctant, especially because he has provided assitance on this before, and also because he has expressed gratitude to me for defending his integrity. Therefore, I believe I am entitled to a little more cooperation on this issue.After all, the preponderance of the evidence is convincing enough. For example, is Frenchy really Charles Rogers? Maybe not. So does that destroy Chauncey Holt's info. No.It would destroy Chauncey's info yes, if he had said it was Charles Rogers, but that's not what he said. He said he knew that person as "Carlos Montoya", and that he can't guarantee it was in fact Rogers (which I am sure is the case). After an exhaustive 18 month search, historian Grady verified that Files had indeed entered the Army in 1959 and went into the 82nd Airborne before being sent to Laos on July 10, 1959. Files speaks in a distinct military manner with no remorse for anyone he has ever killed. One year later, in early 1996, historian Grady checked the service record of Files again. No records were found and all files under the name "James E. Files" were marked "no further information available."Was Jimmy during his military service Sutton or Files? Why is Grady's serial for Jimmy in question?In the photos, the individual in front is the individual I knew as Richard Montoya (Charles Rogers). The individual behind him I knew as Charles Harrelson. I had reason to believe that who he actually was, even though I didn't know him that well. I 'm confident that's who it was. And I'm the gentleman in the back, carrying the bag with the radio in it. --Chauncey Holt
(Charles Rogers) Who put this in the above quote? Why or how did Chauncey come to say that Montoya might be Rogers? Did someone tell this to Chauncey?
(Charles Rogers) Who put this in the above quote? Why or how did Chauncey come to say that Montoya might be Rogers? Did someone tell this to Chauncey?
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
Idea
Show Jimmy Grady's serial # for Jimmy.
Say to Jimmy:
1.) "If this is NOT your old # raise your hand."
Now Jimmy did not understand what was said to him. Right? So if Jimmy doesn't raise his hand, then say:
2.) "If this IS your old number, then do &/or say nothing."
So, if Gady's # is correct, then Jimmy kept his mouth shut about it. Plus, Jimmy can always say that; he never understood what it was all about. As Carlos Marcello would say: "I never told 'um notten." But Wim has his confirmation.
Say to Jimmy:
1.) "If this is NOT your old # raise your hand."
Now Jimmy did not understand what was said to him. Right? So if Jimmy doesn't raise his hand, then say:
2.) "If this IS your old number, then do &/or say nothing."
So, if Gady's # is correct, then Jimmy kept his mouth shut about it. Plus, Jimmy can always say that; he never understood what it was all about. As Carlos Marcello would say: "I never told 'um notten." But Wim has his confirmation.
Was Jimmy during his military service Sutton or Files? Why is Grady's serial for Jimmy in question?
There are people disputing it, or saying it belonges to another James Files , born in in 1925. Tosh claims it belongs to yet another guy, a Capt. Banner who died in WWII. There was a whole thread on it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... topic=8102
Quote:
In the photos, the individual in front is the individual I knew as Richard Montoya (Charles Rogers). The individual behind him I knew as Charles Harrelson. I had reason to believe that who he actually was, even though I didn't know him that well. I 'm confident that's who it was. And I'm the gentleman in the back, carrying the bag with the radio in it. --Chauncey Holt
(Charles Rogers) Question Who put this in the above quote? Why or how did Chauncey come to say that Montoya might be Rogers? Did someone tell this to Chauncey?
I think I did. It is not in the original interview.
There are people disputing it, or saying it belonges to another James Files , born in in 1925. Tosh claims it belongs to yet another guy, a Capt. Banner who died in WWII. There was a whole thread on it here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index ... topic=8102
Quote:
In the photos, the individual in front is the individual I knew as Richard Montoya (Charles Rogers). The individual behind him I knew as Charles Harrelson. I had reason to believe that who he actually was, even though I didn't know him that well. I 'm confident that's who it was. And I'm the gentleman in the back, carrying the bag with the radio in it. --Chauncey Holt
(Charles Rogers) Question Who put this in the above quote? Why or how did Chauncey come to say that Montoya might be Rogers? Did someone tell this to Chauncey?
I think I did. It is not in the original interview.
-
Jim Thompson
- Posts: 226
- Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:23 pm
?s
dankbaar wrote:Was Jimmy during his military service Sutton or Files? Why is Grady's serial for Jimmy in question?There are people disputing it, or saying it belonges to another James Files , born in in 1925. Tosh claims it belongs to yet another guy, a Capt. Banner who died in WWII. Quote:In the photos, the individual in front is the individual I knew as Richard Montoya (Charles Rogers). The individual behind him I knew as Charles Harrelson. I had reason to believe that who he actually was, even though I didn't know him that well. I 'm confident that's who it was. And I'm the gentleman in the back, carrying the bag with the radio in it. --Chauncey Holt(Charles Rogers) Question Who put this in the above quote? Why or how did Chauncey come to say that Montoya might be Rogers? Did someone tell this to Chauncey?I think I did. It is not in the original interview.
When did Jimmy change from Sutton to Files?
John Craig in The Man on the Grassy Knoll (1992) argues that Frenchy was Rogers. Is there any other source for this claim? When did Chauncey suggest that Frenchy may have been Rogers?
When did Jimmy change from Sutton to Files?
John Craig in The Man on the Grassy Knoll (1992) argues that Frenchy was Rogers. Is there any other source for this claim? When did Chauncey suggest that Frenchy may have been Rogers?
When did Jimmy change from Sutton to Files?
End of 1963, after JFK
John Craig in The Man on the Grassy Knoll (1992) argues that Frenchy was Rogers. Is there any other source for this claim? When did Chauncey suggest that Frenchy may have been Rogers?
Sure, his ex girlfriend and Chuck Rolland from the Houston ice skating rink identified him immediately from the tramps photographs. Actually Lois Gibson's work is just a bonus. There is really no doubt about this. Wim
End of 1963, after JFK
John Craig in The Man on the Grassy Knoll (1992) argues that Frenchy was Rogers. Is there any other source for this claim? When did Chauncey suggest that Frenchy may have been Rogers?
Sure, his ex girlfriend and Chuck Rolland from the Houston ice skating rink identified him immediately from the tramps photographs. Actually Lois Gibson's work is just a bonus. There is really no doubt about this. Wim